> The cuts to NASA as well as NOAA, NIH, USGS, USDA, FWS, DOE, etc. are not really saving that much money, but are destroying literally trillions of dollars of future economic value
You, in reply, wrote:
> The real issue is essentially: which would you rather have, $1 now or $10 tomorrow?[1]
I'm saying you're wrong. There is not a choice to be made. We want the $10 tomorrow. No rational person can disagree with this if the person making the choice is the US federal government, who can spend money into existence. If we have some use for $1 now, just spend that $1 into existence too! Then, tomorrow, we'll have the $10 too!
If you agree with the cuts, you must logically agree that they are a bad investment: that $1 today will net us 75 cents tomorrow.
That wasn't my argument? I think you should look at my last paragraph. It starts with "I'm pointing this out because".
> We want the $10 tomorrow.
Previously I didn't state my position. You *assumed* my position. So allow me to tell you what it is: I agree, $10 tomorrow is better
> No rational person can disagree with this
You really should read [1]
Actually, you really should read my whole comment and be careful to not read things my comment doesn't say.
To circle back,
>> miscommunication due to different assumptions about what we want
A corollary to this is "miscommunication [frequently] happens when we make inaccurate assumptions about the position of others". Let's not go putting words in other people's mouths.
I understood your point. I just couldn't fathom any reason it was in this specific discussion other than as a way to legitimize the cuts as one of several "choices" that could be made depending on the assumptions or predilections of the party choosing. In this case, there are no choices to be made (one of the "choices" is literally better in every way and only a fool wouldn't take it), so any suggestion that there are "sides" to this "argument" is de facto an argument in favor of the cuts, regardless of what you claim to believe.
I understand now that you are just making a semi-wanky abstract point about the nature of rhetoric and descisionmaking for its own sake, and I apologize for misunderstanding this.
